MovieChat Forums > Srpski film (2010) Discussion > Do People Consider Newborn Rape Worse Th...

Do People Consider Newborn Rape Worse Than (Older) Child Rape?


Perhaps that's not the case, and people are just particularly disturbed by this because it's the only film it's ever been in (that I'm aware of) and therefore it breaks new ground, but there are movies which contain scenes of child molestation and child rape (which I consider a worse crime than newborn rape because the child is old enough to be psychologically traumatized as well as physically harmed, even though both are obviously deplorable) that have resulted in less of an outcry. Hell, the film Bastard out of Carolina involves an extremely violent child rape scene, although no nudity is shown it's still very graphic, yet that didn't seem to make as big a splash as the newborn scene in this did. Is it maybe because the newborn scene was just filmed for shock value, whereas child rape scenes in other films usually have a point?






Valar morghulis

reply

I don't think I've heard anyone say New born rape is worse than child rape or vice versa.

reply

[deleted]

I don't think it's a matter of which is worse.
I have seen both movies you mentioned and both gave me a depressed sad horrific feeling, but in a different way.


Well, I'm sure that's at least half true.

"SD_Girl_Lover"

Subtle. Tantrum over now, is it?





Valar morghulis

reply

[deleted]

Of course you believe i actually enjoyed the rape scenes. Pff.


I don't remember saying that (if I did then it was probably just to piss you off), I only recall saying that you had rescue fantasies about the child which were likely, at least to some extent, sexual in nature. That's why you bragged about having her as your desktop wallpaper and proved it with a screenshot, I don't believe you watched the movie repeatedly because you enjoyed watching the girl be raped, but because you imagined you could swoop in and rescue her and then have some sort of "consensual" relationship instead. Few paedophiles enjoy watching children be violently attacked to the degree that Malone was in that film, which was pretty vicious, in their mind they usually rationalize their sexual fantasies (and eventual crimes) by pretending the child is just as interested or curious about sex and that what they feel is sweet, romantic, pure love etc.

The rapist in the film probably wasn't even a paedophile.

Tantrum? What are you talking about?


The last time we spoke you threw a tantrum and deleted your own account, after we'd discussed some hard truths you presumably had difficulty with.

Angelica is 11 by now, still loving her and i refuse to masturbate to her image.


Strange way of phrasing it.







Valar morghulis

reply

That is indeed a very strange way of phrasing it, perhaps someone should find out where he lives and warn the authorities...

reply

[deleted]

Eh?






Valar morghulis

reply

i dont think either crime in itself is worse than the other - i think its more about the perpetrator of the crime. the mindset of someone performing new-born porn is probably more depraved and damaged than standard child molester.

reply

Are we really so angry about a perpetrator of such deeds primarily due to our imagination on what his MIND might be like?

reply

There was a sick *beep* in Akron Ohio that completely destroyed a newborn girls chance of every having a normal life.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

That's child mutilation, not child rape, and although I don't agree with child circumcision (nor would I agree that it sexually cripples males, you have no hard evidence for such a claim) I wouldn't put it in the same category, morally. Furthermore, female circumcision is also legal and socially acceptable in some cultures, so it's not just males.






"I have no idea what "hammer time" is. Or how it differs from regular time."

reply

[deleted]

Mutilation is worse than rape. Objectively so.


If you're saying it's objectively worse morally then I'm afraid you'll have to prove the existence of objective morality.

And given it involves assaulting the genitals with a knife, it's quite obviously knife-rape.


By that logic, all operations done by a medical professional with surgical instruments would amount to assault with a deadly weapon.

Other than the fact I experienced before and after and know for a fact all the erogenous nerves are in the foreskin.


Yes, other than that, since I too have experienced before and after and noticed almost no difference other than slightly less sensitivity which in no way impacted the intensity of my orgasms or my ability to maintain an erection. If anything I lasted longer during sex and my orgasms became more intense as a result - if this is your idea of sexual crippling, perhaps we have different definitions.

Other than the fact histological analysis shows all the fine touch receptors are in the foreskin and the glans is non-erogenous.


This in no way signifies that removing the foreskin would be "sexually crippling".

The glans is like the surface of the eyeball. IT sense pain and pressure, not erogenous sensation. Circumcised men ARE sexually dysfunctional, by definition. You cannot alter form without altering function.


So you're saying that circumcised males cannot have sex, cannot maintain erections and cannot achieve orgasm? If not then they are not dysfunctional since the sexual function of the penis is to become erect and to ejaculate. Is there a difference in sensations before and after circumcision? Based on anecdotal evidence this appears to depend on the individual, and in my case it actually improved my sex life. I'm sorry it didn't do the same for you, but please don't paint all males with the same brush simply because you're bitter about not being able to get it up.

Not in the West it's not.


Your statement didn't specify this, the West is only one area of the world.

It's also rare compared to MGM and far less damaging in terms of sensory loss. A woman has far more going on sensation wise than just the clit/labia. Women DO get pleasure from the vaginal walls and so-called g-spot.


Are you saying you support female circumcision on this basis?

A man with no foreskin is a man with no sexual pleasure and ED.


We have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support statements like this, and since I've read statements supporting both a negative and a positive change as well as no change at all, I would have to contest your implication that all males who are circumcised cannot achieve sexual pleasure, especially since I myself am living proof that you're wrong.

That's why it was invented, to deny earthly pleasure. Watch "circumcised at 18" on youtube.


Actually it's been performed at different times in different cultures for vastly different reasons for thousands of years - everything from hygiene to rites of passage into adulthood.

The reason most circumcised men don't complain is because they're knife-raped at birth and have no point of comparison.


I don't understand why that would be necessary for a sexual cripple. Surely they'd just hear about their fellow uncircumcised males performing much better in the bedroom, and compare their inability to achieve an erection with uncircumcised males who always achieve erections without difficulty, no? Or perhaps we'd hear about it from their female lovers who always prefer uncircumised males for their superior sexual prowess. Oh wait, that's... not actually the case...






"I have no idea what "hammer time" is. Or how it differs from regular time."

reply

[deleted]

No, it's objectively worse in terms of damage.


What sort of damage are we referring to, physical damage, psychological damage? Because there are rape cases which cause far worse physical and psychological damage than circumcision in my view.

That would be true if circumcision were a medical procedure but it's not.


I see, so the surgeons who perform it all around the globe aren't being arrested... why, exactly?

So you're saying you have a magic penis that defies neurological facts.


No, I'm saying that you haven't provided any neurological facts that indicate sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision in all males. A loss in sensitivity, whether minor or major depending on how much foreskin was actually removed, does not automatically result in dysfunction.

No, I oppose both. You oppose FGM but support MGM.


Don't tell me what my position is. I oppose both female and male circumcision if they're done without the individual's informed consent, which applies to any surgical procedure with the possible exception of those intended to save a person's life.

Actually, we have hard science. It's called neurology. You're living proof some cut guys will desperately lie to cover up the fact they are sexually dysfunctional.


I don't think you fully understand the term "dysfunctional", if men who are circumcised are capable of both having and enjoying sex regularly, as well as procreating, then circumcision has no measurable effect on the function of the penis. Can it change sensation? For some people it can, while others have reported minimal to no change, as I said it appears to depend on the individual.

Histological analysis shows virtually all the pleasure-giving fine touch nerves are in the foreksin. The glans is non-erogenous. We know this because it's like the surface of the eyeball, covered in free nerves which only sense pain and pressure.


Once again, you're equating high sensitivity with the only form of pleasure sex can offer, this does not mean that anyone with a less sensitive penis cannot function during sex, or enjoy it. If anything, for some including myself, less sensitivity means longer lasting sex which results in a more intense orgasm.

Now the fact you admit there was a loss in sensitivity means we're getting somewhere. I reckon you've desperately tried to convince yourself what was done to you is more trivial than it is. A coping mechanism.


A coping mechanism for coping with an improved sex life? Oh yes... woe is me, I'd better delude myself somehow. 

Of course, if it was done as an adult or teen, then chances are you were duped due to some condition like phimosis, which means you could have suffered a painful foreskin pre-circumcision. So the absence of pain gave you relief, but you don't realise it's also taken away most to all of your pleasure. It's hard to know what goes on in the minds of circumcised men who defend their mutilation. There are a lot of reasons.


It's hard to know what goes on in the minds of men who suffer erectile dysfunction and automatically blame it on circumcision, especially when there are a great many reasons they can experience ED including those which are psychosomatic. See? Just as you can accuse me of using a "coping mechanism" without hard evidence, I can play the same game. Perhaps it's better to simply accept that different people have different reactions to circumcision and there is no one result that's the same all of the time.

Post hoc rationalisations. FGM is done "for different reasons" but we all know it's to deny sexual pleasure too.


I don't think you can speak to what "we all know", quite frankly.

There's a reason European men are seen as better lovers than Americans.


By whom? I'm European and I've never heard such a thing.






"I have no idea what "hammer time" is. Or how it differs from regular time."

reply

[deleted]

Physical damage and psychological damage. An unsolicited penis causes potential psychological damage but not sexual suppression for life.


You do realize there are women who have suffered severe physical internal damage from rape, right? As well as women who never fully recover from the psychological wounds inflicted by rape and/or molestation? Men, too.

Because it makes huge amounts of money for medicine and big pharma, and it's a widely practised religious rite that, when challenged, leads to religious whackos going nuts.


You're referring to why you believe it hasn't been made illegal, while failing to acknowledge the fact that whether you like it or not, it is legal and performed by surgeons around the globe. You're also referring to circumcision without consent which I have already said I disagree with, you've yet to provide a convincing argument as to why voluntary circumcision should be outlawed.

I've given you the histological analysis. All the fine touch comes from the foreskin. There is no scientific paper in existence that proves otherwise. IF you have no fine touch sensation, you are numb.


Except I'm not numb. I have less sensitivity, yes, but that's it. I'm sorry if you have no sensitivity whatsoever, perhaps more skin was removed in your procedure than mine, but I can only speak from personal experience as can anyone else. Ultimately you can refuse to believe me and that's fine, I don't have to convince you, I can only point to the fact that studies on the topic are currently inconclusive. For instance:

http://www.webmd.com/men/news/20040202/adult-circumcision-affects-sexual-performance

"Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as "an advantage, rather than a complication," writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology."

And an analysis of 36 different studies:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/Male-circumcision-doesnt-affect-sexual-satisfaction.aspx

You cannot alter form without altering function.


Now you're playing word games.

IF the ability to have sex and procreate was all that was important, FGM would be legal.


Would it? I thought big pharma and religious nuts controlled what was and wasn't legal?

But you would say FGM does have a measurable effect on function. Because you use different logic for each.


Again, stop telling me what my position is, it appears all you're capable of is attacking straw men. I would say nothing of the sort, I oppose FGM because I oppose any surgical procedure done on a person without their informed consent, with possible exceptions including emergency life saving operations.

It changes sensation for all. Nobody has a magic penis. The people who report minimal change are lying.


I could just as easily say the people who are reporting negative changes are lying when they say it's a result of their circumcision, or I could say uncircumcised men who deny having ED in studies done to compare against circumcised men are lying. I could even say you are lying (or more likely, trolling), but it's pointless because I can't prove it.

Haven't you heard of circumfetishists? People who get off on having this done. Most adult men who choose to do this (and there aren't many) will be doing so for religious/weird personal reasons.


How exactly can you speak to everyone's reasons for choosing it? Furthermore, what difference would it make anyway? I'm not claiming men choose circumcisions in order to improve their sex lives, I'm saying that being circumcised has improved mine.

By your logic, if one woman says cutting her vulva off doesn't change anything, then we must believe her. Ergo, FGM isn't damaging.


It's not "one woman", we're talking about thousands and thousands of people and we're talking about feelings here, something which cannot be quantified or measured. You cannot reliably determine how much pleasure or pain a person is feeling unless you ask them, that's why when people are suffering heart attacks or other serious illnesses, doctors or paramedics ask the patient to rate their pain on a scale of 1-10 in order to assess their condition. Hell, there would be no use for surveys at all if we could tell the exact effect circumcision or other surgical procedures had on people's pleasure without interacting with them.

You cannot have a more intense orgasm if you have little to no fine touch reception.


Once again, I'd be living proof that you're wrong, but since you don't believe me there's really no point in a further dialogue. Longer lasting sex can produce a more intense orgasm because it involves a bigger buildup, again I've tried it both ways. Hang on a minute... little to no fine touch reception? So now you're admitting there could be some fine touch reception? Make up your mind.

You're trying to rationalise your mutilation. You have no point of comparison. There is zero evidence circumcision makes you last longer. If anything , it's the opposite.


There's anecdotal evidence, which is pretty much all we can obtain for either case at the moment. I'm not trying to rationalize my "mutilation" because it has little to do with rationality - these are physical sensations we're discussing.

Because circumcised men have little to no feedback, sex is more boring and they become more goal-oriented. How much of a prototypical mutilated man in denial can you be.


Wow, really? I actually feel sorry for you, in all seriousness. You think sex is boring for a circumcised man just because there's less sensitivity? Clearly you must've gleaned no psychological pleasure from sex, it seems the sex you've been used to is a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am sort of deal, and for that you have my sympathies. I could probably enjoy sex even if I couldn't orgasm at all, I get turned on just from pleasing a woman, whether it's performing oral sex or fingering, etc. it's always exciting to me.

It is impossible to have an improved sex life by cutting off the organ responsible for all your sexual pleasure, the foreksin. It's like saying cutting off your left leg makes you a better sprinter.


Facile analogy, as we've discussed, you've provided no evidence that the foreskin is responsible for providing all of the sexual pleasure, especially since sexual pleasure itself is entirely subjective.

Let's see. Who should people believe. A man who has experienced both, or a man mutilated at birth who has zero knowledge of what the foreskin and normal sex feel like.


Why would it matter? If it's as obvious as you claim, then circumcised men wouldn't need knowledge of the foreskin to know they cannot experience any pleasure from sex, no? Unless you're implying of course that pleasure is... subjective? I am a man who's experienced both.

Circumcised men are 4-5 times more likely to have ED, hence why viagra sales are highest in the richest circumcising nations, e.g. Israel and USA. Man A having his foreskin cut off leads to the same outcome as man B or man C having his foreskin cut off. The result is no foreskin. No foreskin = no pleasure + ED. Fact.


So you're comfortable citing studies (I assume that's from a study, and not your rectum, though I wouldn't be surprised) with anecdotal evidence to support your claims against circumcision but if I offer opposing studies, then everybody's lying? What was the sample portion tested in the study that said they're 4-5 times more likely to have ED? Can you prove the uncircumcised men surveyed weren't lying about their ED? Perhaps they were just, you know, rationalizing it. The higher Viagra sales don't mean a thing, Viagra's not just used to treat ED and some men use it for recreational purposes to make sex last longer.

Possibly not, because you do come across as mentally ill.


Someone who cannot even accept the possibility that he may be wrong about a subjective issue is in my view a lot closer to mental illness than someone who acknowledges fallibility.

Probably because you're circumcised and women aren't satisfied by your mutilated limp dick.


Some women actually prefer circumcised penises, while some don't, depending on various factors. Some women have had bad experiences with uncircumcised men and some have had bad experiences with circumcised men, some have only ever had sex with one type and not the other, and so on. You may want to ask around, rather than assuming you can just know other people's feelings and opinions without consulting them. Then again, even if they said they preferred circumcised men you'd probably attempt to rationalize it in your head by calling them all liars too.






"I have no idea what "hammer time" is. Or how it differs from regular time."

reply

Christ, Kevinology, you really DO know your stuff, why are you SO clever?

reply

Are you by any chance employed in such departments?

reply

Amazing how much psychological and social and other issues exist around aspects of sexual violence/perversions more so than physical violence including murder, and how there are many complexities going around with the obvious, including various questions, points of view of the victim versus POV of the perpetrator, different repulsed emotions we feel towards perpetrator etc etc etc and constant questioning of whether or not one offense is worse than anothers etc and how to punish perpetrators or ourselves as the damaged victims.

God.

And various approaches to it in films etc.

reply

Actually yes.. Because it kills the baby.. Older kids at least have a chance of survival, though scarred for life..

reply

Well, the newborn was fucked to death, slowly impaled on a d!ck. I'd say not much is worse than thst.

reply